Did you know that Bosch pays Tanos a licensing fee in order to market their L-Boxxes in the USA? At the back of Bosch L-Boxxes, and presumably Sortimo L-Boxxes as well (Sortimo is Bosch’s OEM partner and makes all L-Boxxes), there’s a raised message: Licensed by TTS Tooltechnic Systems.

After being initially shocked at the news, this is the first thing I thought of. Will Festool/their parent company license SawStop tech to other brands?

Here’s the meat of the press release:

Tualatin, Oregon – June 26, 2017: SawStop today announced the acquisition of SawStop, LLC by TTS Tooltechnic Systems, a third-generation family-owned company based in Wendlingen, Germany. The TTS family of companies includes Festool, Tanos, Cleantec and others, and employs more than 2,500 people around the globe.

“We are proud to join a company with a shared passion for customer safety, product quality and meticulous engineering,” said SawStop’s President, Dr. Stephen Gass. “Speaking for our entire team in Tualatin, Oregon and across North America, we are excited to join with TTS to bring safer woodworking to more people through new tools and in new markets around the world. With a family like TTS at our side, I can’t wait to see what we will accomplish together.”

The acquisition is expected to be completed in July 2017. SawStop’s current management team will continue to operate the company out of its Oregon headquarters.

Both SawStop and TTS are private companies, and so there’s no obligation for them to discuss acquisition terms or dollar amounts.

Perhaps Festool wanted to bring injury-mitigation technologies to market, and they decided it would be more cost-effective to make an offer for SawStop, rather than to develop their own tech or license SawStop’s.

There are a lot of questions, but not a lot of answers.

All we really know is that Festool’s parent company is buying SawStop, and that’s a very big deal.

What do you think this will mean for Festool, SawStop, and competitors of both brands?

Update: This is What Festool Says About Their SawStop Acquisition

Yesterday we talked a little about SawStop being acquired by Festool’s parent company. Since then, we saw a new press release by Festool USA, announcing the acquisition from their side of things.

There’s one part that stands out to me most: The newly acquired technology, which TTS will continue to develop together with the SawStop team, supports these priorities and prepares TTS to face stricter safety requirements that are likely to be imposed on power tools.

Here’s the full text:

TTS Tooltechnic Systems signed Purchase Agreement to acquire US enterprise SawStop, LLC, thus expanding the TTS range of products to table saws and enhancing the company’s expertise to further safeguard operator safety. SawStop, LLC is a US manufacturer of high-quality saws headquartered in Tualatin, Oregon near Portland, USA that offers unmatched safety technology. Active Injury Mitigation (AIM) is a pioneering technology that prevents saw operators from suffering serious cuts and wounds by stopping the blade within only a few milliseconds if the saw blade comes in contact with the operator’s skin.

For TTS and the company’s subsidiaries, it has always been a top priority to deliver precision results with maximum operator protection. The newly acquired technology, which TTS will continue to develop together with the SawStop team, supports these priorities and prepares TTS to face stricter safety requirements that are likely to be imposed on power tools.

The acquisition is expected to be completed in July 2017. SawStop will be integrated into the TTS group as a separate legal entity and both the name and brand will be preserved. The company’s current management team will continue to operate SawStop. The parties have agreed to refrain from disclosing the purchase price.

There have only been 17 public comments to date, some in support of the rulemaking, others against it. From what I can see, there is a strong likelihood of the rulemaking passing. There are strong arguments against the proposed rulemaking, but perhaps not enough to sway the Commission.

SawStop has a head start in the flesh-detection and active injury-mitigating table saw business, being the pioneer in that field. From what I can see based on my limited but growing experience with their jobsite saw, they know how to make good table saws.

Bosch has some experience with active injury-mitigation tech now as well, with their Reaxx saw.

With only 2 players on the field, competing brands are at a disadvantage if the CPSC does go through with the proposed rulemaking in short time.

I’m sure that all of the major table brands are working on their own flesh-detection and active injury-mitigating designs, in preparation of several SawStop patents expiring in a few years. Or maybe a solution is ready in case they need to quickly put something to market.

That might be one nasty law fight – if the CSPC requires new table saws to have active injury-mitigation technology, but SawStop (now Festool or TTS with SawStop) seek to bar competing products from entry into the USA on patent infringement grounds as happened with the Bosch Reaxx.

I have a feeling that, if Festool/TTS’s SawStop’s acquisitions also include their patents, that there’s high potential for favorable licensing agreements – at least before the SawStop patents start to expire.

It’s hard to say – there’s nothing to go by, and this is something no brand representative could be expected to comment on.

In short, I can see why Festool wanted to acquire SawStop. It’s a good play. Sawstop had just under 40 million USD in sales revenue in 2016, and TTS earned EUR 580 million (~655 million USD).

Many power tool brands have the buying power to acquire SawStop, but given the history between SawStop and all the big players, it’s no surprise (in hindsight) that a deal like this was only made with an “outsider” like Festool.

From Festool’s press release, it’s clear that SawStop will continue down their path, and it seems that Festool will seek to add active injury-mitigation tech to related products – perhaps new products.

What do you think will come from this acquisition?

Me? I’d love to see SawStop broaden the breadth of products. But I think it’s a greater chance that this opportunity will accelerate their development and improvement efforts.

Holz-Her’s power tool division (saws and belt sanders and edge trimmers)
was one of their acquisitions. Narex (power tools, not the one that makes chisels) in the Czech Republic is another. Protool was an Eastern European marketed first fix/rough-in oriented line made almost exclusively at the Narex plant until they decided to just make it all Festool. It gets a bit confusing, as TTS is synonymous with Festool. So, those are all Festool brands/interests, but umbrella’d under TTS with the Festool name serving as a brand in a diversified portfolio. More confusingly so, I think Festo was marketing their power tools as Festo Tool Technic System before finally spinning off their tool division in order to focus on the pneumatics/robotics end that had become their primary focus. Same Stoll family, nonetheless. The Fe in Festo/Festool is from Fezer, who’s company, Fezer, is only 5 years younger than Festo. Confused yet? :0

This is sad news to me…. This will make me decide to avoid Festool…. The way the SawStop owners do not play nicely in the field of letting others come to market with safety saws…. They are very Apple like in high-minded attitude and willingness to sue anyone. I avoid Apple for their attitude and will avoid SawStop and Festool. This makes me sad. We all need to work together to advance power tool safety, for the good of our fellow man, and not sue each other for having similar ideas.

Shouldn’t make you sad… If you knew the back story of SawStop and how it was started. You would stand behind it 100%. SawStops owner started out of went to every big table saw manufacturer (Ryobi, Delta, Black & Decker, Emerson, and Craftsman) and was turned away because of the technology. Now those same competitors want to make a some what similar saw. C’mon! I’d take them all to court too!

The Ryobi deal leaked some time ago. You should be able to look it up on Google. Ryobi was close, but walked after being pressured by an industry group (PTI). Royalties were 3% of wholesale (rising to 8% if the tech became standard/common across the industry), not that bad, but more than most bargain brands want to offer. The whole licensing thing happened in 2002, before SawStop was making saws, and well before the proposed laws that would have required SawStop tech.

The saw stop creator is a patent lawyer after all so yeah trying to force every saw on the market to use his tech is not doing it for yours and my safety in mind. I get them trying to keep Bosch out of the market but if your going to try and force every company to use your tech you better get the price point down just a tad bit.

From what I have read sawstop has the better overall saw and it’s $200 cheaper but with Boschs tech you get a dual use cartridge and the blade isn’t going to be destroyed,so for a heavy use saw the Bosch would be a lot cheaper. Just a bit surprised that a big conglomerate like Bosch couldn’t compete on the initial price point.

Yeah, Wilson, I’m not 100% up to speed with SawStop, but the backstory from what I remember, was less than ‘friendly’.

The creator was/is an engineer and patent attorney, like others mentioned. He patented some flesh detection/blade ‘stopping’, which continues to be a bit vague (a primary problem with Bosch’s Reaxx configuration, it’s a totally different mechanism for stopping the blade, but potentially infringed on certain ‘detection’ patents)…then simultaneously tried to get companies to use said patents, while also lobbying governments to make it illegal NOT to use said patents. The original ‘company’ wasn’t intended to make products, it was to receive royalties on the patents. The brand SawStop, and the saws they created, was literally a last ditch effort when the lobbying wasn’t gaining traction fast enough.

The cost was always the problem. The tech is great, but A) big carpenter saws are generally a once a generation purchase. When you settle down and buy a good one, you generally won’t do that again for the rest of your life. So eating into sales of those types of table saws was never very likely. Job site saws, on the other hand, are more disposable. But when SS makes one for $1000+, and you can otherwise get a great one for less than half of that…the lobbying on SS’s part got a bit heavier handed.

No one wants anyone to be injured by a saw, but also no one wants to start doubling and tripling price paid for added safety when the machine otherwise does the same thing.

It’s just like ABS and traction control in cars/trucks. Remember when those were expensive options? And remember how few bought them? Guess who complained? The car makers, because they did the R&D to make it work, and many of them held patents they wanted forced on other makers. Eventually, when enough competition between makers came to light as well as tighter control on the involved differences between all the patents, they became required…but at least at a point where the difference to consumers wasn’t all that drastic.

Saw Stop has every right to sue a company that infringes on their patents. When the tech was first invented, he tried to sell it to a number of companies, and no one bought it. Only after they saw the financial success that SawStop had did they want a piece. It’s a money grab, and they let someone else do all the hard work. I support SawStop on not releasing their patents.

Yeah but trying to make his tech standard wasn’t a money grab? I get the patents and r&d cost but all these companies are in it for the money. The only time they care about our wellbeing is if it gets them sued.

Yeah either I totally misunderstood the ways in which SawStop’s owner approached the industry after the patents hit…or others are…

the company infamously lobbied to make it illegal to sell ‘unsafe’ table saws day and date with approaching all the major manufacturers. I also remember reading that the owner never intended to ‘sell’ table saws, that came later when the company grew and they started needing alternatives to advertise the tech.

Just Occam’s Razor here…Why would every single manufacturer turn the guy down if there wasn’t some dirty shat going on? Any one of them could’ve picked up the patents, and tested it with the public. It’s pretty clear that there was some unanimous declaration that the way SawStop was approaching manfucturers, while also trying to stop sales of their current products…and it wasn’t welcomed with open arms…which is the only reason SawStop branded saws ever came to existence.

SawStop was never looking for a safer alternative table saw…they’ve been looking for ONLY table saws equipped with their tech to legally be able to be sold.

So could you explain more about why you/’people’ hate it, to help more people understand? Is there something you don’t like about the technology, or just their business practices (which Festool could and probably will change)?

I’ve followed this discussion for many years. My take on it is that most people prefer to have choices rather than being told what to do. While few would advocate total anarchy, they’d prefer less regulation than more regulation. Injuries and even deaths from rotating circular saw blades have happened since the technology was invented. If you ever saw an old swing saw in operation – your brain would likely “cry out” danger. Fast forward to more modern saws with blade guards (that people often remove) and you still have injuries – arguably mostly caused by operator misuse/error, lack of training , inattention, wood defects etc. Much publicized lawsuits against table saw manufacturers (like one that I recall Ryobi lost – even though operator error/misuse was a big factor) reminded us that table saw safety should not be taken lightly – and could be costly for employers and manufacturers – and certainly could be devastating for the injured worker.

As I understand the continuing saga, at some point Mr. Gass invented and received US Patents (possibly other too) for flesh-sensing technology and its application to table saws. He reportedly tried to sell the technology some (most? or all?) table saw manufacturers. Whether he was asking too much or there were other reasons – I don’t know – but apparently none of those he approached decided to buy the technology.

Instead the industry seemed to band together to develop and implement a new standard that included a 2-piece split guard system, riving knife and anti-kickback pawls – that if used correctly would improve safety. Of course these safety features can be removed or not installed and the saw will still run – providing some options allowing certain cuts to be made.

Reportedly out of frustration about not being able to sell his technology – Mr. Gass took another path – with the establishment of the Sawstop company to manufacture saws using the patented flesh-sensing system. Gas/Sawstop also reportedly set about on a campaign to get governmental agencies (like the CPSC) to require active safety systems ( as in Mr. Gass’s patents) to be included with all new table saws.

When Bosch came out with their REAXX saw that included their own version (many would argue superior to Sawstop’s) of flesh-sensing and blade-dropping – Sawstop/Gass took legal action (citing patent infringement) that resulted in the REAXX saw not being able to be sold in the US.

I’ve tried to state the history in a nutshell – but apologize if I’ve missed anything or inadvertently misrepresented any f the facts. The “fun” part now comes with understanding the facts, motives and reactions. My take is that people seek patents and patent protection so as to make money. Otherwise they would have publicized their patentable ideas and put the intellectual property in the public domain. Our founding fathers early on – recognized the incentives that patents and patent rights would provide for would-be inventors and established the US Patent system. Had Mr. Gass chosen to be eleemosynary in this regard we would have applauded him – but rather he chose his right to make money from the fruits of his invention. I have no idea whether his approach was correct, if he asked too much for his invention, if his/Sawstop’s subsequent tactics in defending his/their patents were fair, or if the ongoing litigation and discussion at the CSPC will actually benefit any of us. But its clear that people have taken sides – some directing their anger at Gass and/or Sawstop.

As I’ve heard the story, the saw stop “inventor” tried to sell the idea to existing manufacturers and got snubbed. They had to take all the risk why should they roll over and give anyone a break now. Personally I have no interest in their products, but I support risk reward.

The money, going forward, isn’t really in tablesaws. Oh, sure, there’s still some there, but yer big money is going to be in the rest of the stationary/bench tools. Bandsaws, shapers and jointers. Plus other dry saws, i.e. radial, miter, scms.

This may be a strategic move on Festool’s (TTS) part to encourage Bosch to buy, or at least invest in THEM. Also, if active safety tech is on the EU safety-crat’s drawing board (I can’t imagine that it ISN’T), this gives TTS a leg up.

Makes a lot of sense to me. Festool/TTS are focused on high-end specialty tools, woodworking in particular. I’m a little sad that an upstart American company is getting bought out by a foreign group, but TTS has shown a commitment to quality which speaks well of keeping SawStop around without cheapening their quality.

Either way, I’ll be buying a SS in the next two months, so I won’t expect a major re-design or cheapening in that time.

Are we sure that the “flesh detection” patents and licensing is part of the deal? Often times these can be separate entities. Particularly in cases where a patent holder will spin up a “proof of concept” company with the patent technology.

Do we know if the patents are owned by SawStop or by Gass? The patent itself lists the assignee as sd3 LLC, which I assume is a holding company of some sort. It would be interesting to know if TTS bought sd3 as well as SawStop.

According to this court document https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/141746.P.pdf , SawStop LLC is a subsidiary of SD3 LLC. The official announcement http://www.sawstop.com/company/news/press-releases/sawstop-TTS says ‘SawStop LLC’ is what is being acquired. It would certainly be possible (though dumb-sounding) to have acquired ‘SawStop LLC’ without acquiring the patents held at the level of SD3 LLC; but conversely it could also be possible to acquire ‘SawStop LLC’ indirectly by acquiring its parent ‘SD3 LLC’, but focus on the more well-known SawStop name in the press release. It seems nothing has been said publicly yet to clarify the SD3 situation.

The patents all expire in about three years. This deal will take a while to actually close, as TTS would be insane to do so with out having an army of lawyers go over the fine print. i.e. – the patents and the other I.P. that SS has.

Leaving TTS with precious little time to exploit their new monopoly. I think they are simply looking to diversify out of hand tools. Compressors and their new molding company demonstrate this.

I think it’s interesting that some folks talk about the Bosch dual use cartridge as a superior design. How many times do you have to shove your hand into the saw blade before you re-think how you use the saw? I have a SS for the past 5 years. I have never triggered the brake and hopefully never will. There still is no substitute for common sense safety such as using push sticks, feather boards, guards, and known safe techniques. But having the technology as a back up gives me comfort as I get older and slower. The saw is nice and I can’t complain about the quality or the value received. As far as the lobbying, that’s how our political system seems to work now days. How many drug companies or cable companies have lined the pockets of elected officials in order to make them the sole provider of a drug or technology? I seriously doubt that Bosch, Delta, or any other saw manufacturer would be any more altruistic and offer the technology to competitors at minimal/no cost.

So based on your logic, that make him not the only crook but one of the crook among others… 🙂

No we don’t expect anyone to give their patent away I also fully support his action to defense his patent. However the moment he tried to force the consumer hand in the guise of safety. I fully expect that he give that patent away. It’s either he is in for the money or in for the altruistic value of it. To try to line his own pocket by arguing under the guise of safety for other make him a crook, no less, in my book.

Your logic is sound assuming the saw gets used in the workshop with nice dry wood. My table saw injury happened in the jobsite where moisture content of wood can vary widely. The injury happened when I was going to fast at the end of the day, and the tech probably would have saved me. This is my first incident (hopefully only) in 10 years of construction. We’re not putting our hands in the saw on a daily basis, but the possibility of having a false deployment due to wood conditions is very real. I know they both have overrides but construction moves at such a fast pace I’m sure someone would accidentally put some pressure treated through the saw from time to time. For that reason the Bosch tech is great, not only do you get two shots per cartridge, but it save the blade so we can go back to work

Either the SawStop case has bled SawStop dry, and despite recent legal rulings against, Bosch says it will continue to work with the ITC to see a way forward through the case which will continue to cost SawStop. Or, with the string of victories, Festool sees a monopoly defend-able product.

I’d guess the former, and that the light of loss is being seen at the end of the tunnel for SawStop. Festool has the the pockets to go up against industry heavyweights such as PowerMatic in terms of technology when it comes to producing a darn nice, safe table saw, if Bosch’s PTI supported safety saw technology is eventually allowed to stand.

I don’t know, but I’m skeptical that once another manufacturer came out with a different safety saw technology, that the courts or the market would let SawStop be the only manufacturer. Stephen Gass deserves a ton of credit for kicking the industry around about table saw safety. Maybe now it’s time we all have choices about those options and let the market decide.

@Stuart
“Did you know that Bosch pays Tanos a licensing fee in order to market their L-Boxxes in the USA? At the back of Bosch L-Boxxes, and presumably Sortimo L-Boxxes as well (Sortimo is Bosch’s OEM partner and makes all L-Boxxes), there’s a raised message: Licensed by TTS Tooltechnic Systems.”

That is only true for very old L-Boxxes the new ones do not have this anymore seems to be a temporary thing of the past.

This is no different than seatbelts. They were first patented in the late 1800’s and then again in the mid 1900’s. After seeing the successful decrease of fatal accidents in cases where the occupants were wearing seatbelts, the government required that all auto manufacturers have seatbelts as a standard feature on vehicles. This made the cost and msrp of all vehicles go up, all be it less than the increase we see with SawStop’s technology, but that is just the nature of the complexity of making a saw blade stop in comparison with the overall cost of a table saw.

The only difference is that Sawstop sought out a change in the government requirements for safety equipment before the government thought to do so. To say that they were only interested in money, or that they were only interested in safety, is just a black and white way of thinking.

They created an amazing invention to preserve peoples livelihood when accidents happen, and through a law mandating such technology in all similar saws, they would both make the saws on the market safer, and see a nice paycheck. Not to mention that the government has the ability to seize patents from private parties if the technology is deemed too necessary for the public and having it privately held would actually harm the common good of the people. This means by even trying to push the case of mandating their technology in the market, they were risking losing it all together. Doesn’t seam like a horrible company trying to just get rich to me.

From the outset they might be similar. However once you take a deeper look there different is day and night.

Every time a the safety fire or misfire it will cost you a blade. That’s a major operational cost. Seatbelts only cost a minuscular fraction in relation to the cost of a car, not so in this case.

Why are cost important? Because there are time when the safety need to be disable such as the case of wet lumber. So then what happen? A guy stick his hand in there and bam… So why don’t we take it to the next level? Why don’t I set up a robot there to feed the wood in for me? It’s doable, it work with wet lumber. Yes the cost would be astronomical but it would also be a whole lot safer. That’s the other extreme.

So yes I do have a huge problem with any company that tried to force the consumer hand in the name of safety. However I am a lot more forgiving if the cost vs benefit prove to be reasonable (it’s not in this case). Most of the time once a technology is mandated the patent on it is also expired. There is a reason for it. Technologies need time to mature. They also need to be time tested. That was the case for seatbelts.

few things.
1) it is indeed possible that gass could keep his patent in his name and sell the company without turning over the rights of use of the patent. Notice Festool (TTS) is saying they will keep the name festool and keep the “company management”. Thus they will still sell and market Saw Stop as a company name product(s). If they make a Festool product it might well also keep the saw stop logo. Thus they are keeping gass on in the company so as to keep selling his patent.

(It wouldn’t be the first time investors tried to buy an idea only to find out they hired an permanent employee)

2) patents though they expire can be renewed under various circumstances. It is possible then for these patents to be renewed and thus not made open use. Since it is not a medical item – and it is not regulation requirements as of now – there shouldn’t be anything preventing a patent extension.

3) typically with international patents – if you were to pursue one – if there is a patent in a country that does what you wish to do and their document is older – you have to request their use in that country. Festool could be looking to take the saw stop patent international – which by the way takes significant money these days. Also if I recall correctly current EU law doesn’t allow a foreign entity to hold a patent in EU. IE you have to be based in the EU to even apply for one – but they won’t allow an EU company to patent something that is already a think somewhere else. (note – IF I recall correctly. been a long time since I looked into it)

I don’t know all the details but you can apply for one in Europe (I have one but things may have changed in 10 years). A number of countries have closed direct patent applications and you have to go through the European patent office first, then nationalize per individual countries (expensive indeed!) Enforcement is per country however.

Yes.
But companies like Metro Wire hung on to their protections for decades. But near 2000 lost them and now Chinese wire shelving is both ubiquitous and cheaper then ever.
Okay. Okay. Mickey Mouse is the literal exception mostly due to clout, aka nearly infinite money.

I don’t remember this much commotion over a Chinese company saving the name “Milwaukee” in the past. And in the process quite a few US based jobs as well.
Tim Leatherman also tried to get every single tool and blade manufacturer to license his multi tool idea and they blew him off. He too in time had to protect his designs through the patent process against nearly every entity he’d previously tried to sell his idea to. Sound familiar?
But nothing they make was fundamentally unique in the safety area. And SawStop was. Hmmmm.

Yes and that same Chinese company makes a Ryobi table saw that sells for $129 at Home Depot. If you want to sell something at that price point or even lower (the HF one is $112 after the 20% off coupon) – you can’t “clutter it up” (LOL) with expensive safety technology. Unfortunately, some of the target audience for a $129 saw may also not be all that savvy about table saw safety either.

I’m going to step way back for my comments. Regarding patents, copyright, trademarks, and capitalism in general: I fully believe any one has the right to compensation for “their” work, physical or intellectual. When the compensation involves minor tweeking to keep a patent alive, when it moves far past the lifetime of the creator, well my thinking changes. Where is the line between enlightened self interest and greed? When are people justified in banding together to minimize the effects of greed? These are the real basic questions. I don’t have any trouble judging an effort to force consumers into a single product as greed. I really don’t care why they tried to push the regulation.

If the concept of greed is agreed to, then it’s a matter of trying to judge where the line is. And most importantly, when the driving force is greed, how many people are willing to stand up against it? Rule of law? There is a Public Law requiring the forfeiture of a patent when the public good is determined to be paramount.

Seems to me that if the public safety need is so critical to require regulation, then the need for forfeiture of the patent is equally obvious. Or else the need isn’t really there, and we are looking at a case of greed trying to get a self-serving restriction in place.

An element I have not seen mentioned here is the lawyers and our litigious society.

To my understanding, when Dr. Gass was peddling his patented technology to the standard manufacturers, it was corporate attorneys who put the kibosh on the notion of licensure. To commence making new saws using Gass’s technology would, in their estimation, be to admit that the saws they *had* been selling were unsafe, thus raising their liability for that world-ful of Deltas, B&D, Craftsman, etc.

This is not an idle or minimal consideration. My next-door attorney was a product-liability specialist, and he won a case that to my thinking was an exaggerated form of suicide-by-idiocy. A guy was using a drill. The extension cord had only two holes in its receptacle, so he cut the ground lug off his drill’s plug. The drill motor continually tripped the breaker, and he opened the metallic clamshell to see if he could figure out why. In reassembly, he caught a wire between the halves of the clamshell, cranked down hard enough with his screwdriver to cut through that wire’s insulation, and forthwith electrocuted himself. Bob won the case by pointing out that subsequently to the sale of that drill, double insulated drill motors had become available, and the company had not issued a recall.

I don’t blame the standard manufacturers’ lawyers for taking the stand that they did. in the wake of those refusals, Gass did lots of things right: He had originated and patented a new and useful technology. He had tried to license out his technology. Subsequently, when that failed and it came to building saws himself, he did not begin with low-end saws; be began with high-end professional cabinet saws in which the differential cost of his technology was a comparatively minor matter. He has vigorously and rightfully defended his company against incursion on its patents. Knowing he has a good product that damn’ well saves fingers, he promoted it toward becoming national safety standard. I really appreciate that Gass will replace, at no cost, a cartridge whose firing has saved an amputation.

I have a friend who is missing lots of inches of fingers, another friend who has badly injured himself with his table saw, and another friend who acquired a SawStop and saved an amputation. Guess which of them is most pleased with his result? The ones who saved some money, or the one who got a free replacement cartridge?

My SawStop has had three firings. First I, then later my wife, let the miter gauge drift into contact with the blade. I’ll say that it saved a good bit of wear on the miter gauge.

Third firing, I should have known better. I’m an electrical engineer and optical physicist. I know that the SawStop sensing technology is based on the increase of capacitance when the insulated blade comes into contact with a reservoir of said capacitance (e.g. human meat). I know that mirrors work by having mobile electrons that capture photons and re-radiate the energy. Thus I should have thought a bit more deeply when I set about sawing a half-silvered plastic mirror without invoking the over-ride function. “zzzzzzzzzzzzzz BLAM/THUMP! Aw, shit.”

My local Woodcraft has a contract with a sawblade repairman, and he does a nice job of orthodonture on damaged blades. Twenty bucks puts a $90 Freud Fusion blade back into operation.

No saved amputations here, but the peace of mind is well worth the cost of Gass’s cartridges. Every woodworker has, at one time or another, done a cut that seems a bit dicey at the time — or, regrettably, immediately thereafter. To approach every cut with the added bit of safety is a great comfort. And this, from a geezer who along with his contemporaries, grew up without automotive seatbelts, bike helmets, or a helicopter mom monitoring his every interaction with the world.

fred on The Best Hook and Pick Set?: “Moody also make spring hooks and sets: https://www.amazon.com/Threaded-Spring-Tool-Kit-Light/dp/B0026GI62A/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=B0026GI62A&qid=1558784803&s=industrial&sr=1-1”